CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Aldbury
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, reviewed risk assessments, safe medicines systems and effective infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Wound management had improved, people received timely healthcare support, and staff supported consent and best-interest decisions. People's care records and daily records contained clearer information.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management systems provided better oversight, audits were carried out and an action plan tracked improvements. Staff, relatives and health professionals described the home as well managed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
The Aldbury was rated Good; inspectors found safer wound care, enough staff and stronger management systems.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 February 2022. Inspectors checked Safe, Effective and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and reviewed care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for all three areas inspected. People and relatives said people felt safe. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, medicines were managed safely, infection controls were in place, and people received timely help from health professionals.
The home had improved since its previous inspection. Wound care records and management oversight were better, and the previous breach of Regulation 12 had been resolved. The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good.
This report did not inspect Caring or Responsive. Those ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Improved wound care
The home had strengthened its wound management processes. Records included monitoring information and staff communicated wound information clearly.
“Policies and procedures for safe wound management had been improved since the last inspection.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed to reduce the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Good management oversight
Management systems had improved and included regular clinical audits and an action plan to track areas needing improvement.
“Governance and management systems were robust and provided timely oversight and follow up as required.” from the report
People involved in decisions
Staff asked for consent and involved people, relatives and other relevant people in care decisions where appropriate.
“Staff sought people's consent before supporting them and provided them with information that helped them to make meaningful choices.” from the report
Support from health professionals
People were supported to access professionals such as GPs, dentists, chiropodists and tissue viability nurses when needed.
“People had been supported with timely visits to or from healthcare professionals including the tissue viability nurse, chiropodist, GP and dentist when required.” from the report
Visiting restrictions during an outbreak
minorThe home was experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak during the inspection, so some visiting restrictions were in place. Essential care givers and screened visits were available under stated conditions.
“At the time of our inspection the home was in outbreak status as testing had found positive cases of COVID-19.” from the report
- 01How are you checking that the improvements to wound care records and treatment are being maintained?
- 02What actions are still open in the home's improvement plan, and when will each be completed?
- 03How would visiting work during a COVID-19 outbreak, including for an essential care giver?
- 04How do you involve relatives and legal representatives in Mental Capacity Act and best-interest decisions?
- 05Can we see the previous findings and ratings for Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected in this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control arrangements were safe.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 17 November 2020. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control arrangements because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
They found clear arrangements for visitors, including masks, health questions and hand sanitiser. The home carried out testing, followed an admissions and isolation process, and used protective equipment safely.
The home was clean and tidy. Inspectors saw cleaning schedules, regular cleaning of frequently touched surfaces, and checks on staff hand washing. The home was rated inspected but not rated, so this visit did not give a standard overall quality rating.
Infection control procedures
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including up-to-date guidance and an infection control lead.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, with schedules and frequent cleaning of surfaces and equipment.
“The home was clean and tidy and cleaning schedules were in place.” from the report
Visitor safety
There was a clear process for pre-arranged visitors, with protective equipment, health questions and hand sanitiser at the entrance.
“There was a clear procedure in place to welcome pre-arranged visitors to the home, face masks available, health questions and hand sanitisers at the entrance.” from the report
Safe admissions and testing
The home had an admissions process involving testing, assessment and a period of isolation. People living there and staff took part in routine coronavirus testing.
“There was a clear admissions process in place which involved testing and assessment with a period of isolation in line with current government guidelines.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 17 November 2020?
- 02How do you now manage visits, including masks, health checks, hand hygiene and social distancing?
- 03How do you test new residents and staff, and what isolation arrangements are used after admission?
- 04How often are frequently touched surfaces and shared equipment cleaned and checked?
- 05Can you show us the most recent full CQC ratings for the home, as this inspection was inspected but not rated?
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the other CQC questions were not assessed and no standard overall rating was given. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of The Aldbury
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.